3 ms·

What does this have to do with search and seizure? Maybe you meant the 5th amendment? Even so, it doesn't seem that the defendent was forced to witness against

What does this have to do with search and seizure? Maybe you meant the 5th amendment? Even so, it doesn't seem that the defendent was forced to witness against himself and there was definitely a jury involved. I don't agree this violates my 4th, or even 5th, amendment rights. Maybe someone else can explain the importance of this to me?

ante_annum 13y ago
Actually, the opinion is pretty short and I'd recommend reading it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf The long story short is that the plaintiff had not actually been arrested, so he hadn't been read his Miranda rights, and then his silence was used against him in court when he went silent after certain questions. This opinion says that the 5th is not simply a "right to remain silent", nor is that phrase even in the 5th. If he wanted to claim his rights, he needed to explicitly say so. That's not new, but this case reiterates that point in non-arrest situations.